Programmer Humor

852 readers

5 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

371

Find yourself (lemmy.ml)

submitted 11 months ago by coja@lemmy.ml to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

After searching a little, I found the name of the function and it's proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogSumExp

[–] neeeeDanke@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

thanks for looking it up:).

I do think the upper bound on that page is wrong thought. Incedentally in the article itself only the lower bound is prooven, but in its sources this paper prooves what I did in my comment before as well:

for the upper bound it has max +log(n) . (Section 2, eq 4) This lets us construct an example (see reply to your other comment) to disproove the notion about beeing able to calculate the max for many integers.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 11 months ago

I just remembered where I learned about that function, in this course on convex optimization that unfortunately I never had the opportunity to finishing it but is really good.